John McCain: Palin can beat Obama in 2012.

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake325"]Obama is doing so terribly that I wouldn't be shocked if it happened.DroidPhysX

troll much?

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

troll much?

Solid_Snake325

I think he's doing well within in the confines of what he's allowed to do.

The problem with Americans is their idea of what the President can do is unrealistic. They don't understand our Government. I've seen people go "Obama isn't doing anything so I'm voting Republican" The republicans go "Our #1 Priority is to stop Obama from doing anything" - Do you see the circle?

The problem with America in general, isn't the Executive branch. I think President is fine. What needs to change is our congress and senate.

Blue-Sky

Our President is the leader. He sets the goal for the rest of the country. When I see unemployment STILL at 9%, I'm not going to blame Congress, I'm going to blame the President. HE has a much bigger influence on our economy than the legislature.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]He's not doing exactly what I'd like him to be doing, but he's certainly doing better than any GOP platform I've heard proposed recently.airshocker

I don't hear any GOP platform praising 9% unemployment. The GOP also hasn't suggest policy that makes business crap itself(cap and trade, forms for sales over a certain amount, etc).

I suppose it's subjective, depending on what your priorities are, but he's not doing so well in my book.

But it was the GOP platform that brought unemployment to 8% in the first place.

Right now their policy is to stop progressive legislation, stop change, and keep doing the same thing we've always been doing. My question to you is, if what we;ve been doing before created problem, how can it also be the solution?

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]He's not doing exactly what I'd like him to be doing, but he's certainly doing better than any GOP platform I've heard proposed recently.DroidPhysX

I don't hear any GOP platform praising 9% unemployment. The GOP also hasn't suggest policy that makes business crap itself(cap and trade, forms for sales over a certain amount, etc).

I suppose it's subjective, depending on what your priorities are, but he's not doing so well in my book.

Yep.Just like individual mandates.

Wasnt Cap and trade a GOP idea originally?DroidPhysX

I don't know, but in case it is, I feel the same way about it that I do with the individual mandate: I'm against it.

But it was the GOP platform that brought unemployment to 8% in the first place.

Right now their policy is to stop progressive legislation, stop change, and keep doing the same thing we've always been doing. My question to you is, if what we;ve been doing before created problem, how can it also be the solution?

Blue-Sky

He's had almost three years to bring unemployment down. That hasn't happened. That makes it his mess. You can't use "It was Bush's fault!" for the entire first-term.

In my eyes progressive legislation is the problem in this country. Also, I voted to put a restraining order on Obama. That was my goal in the 2010 election.

The problem with America in general, isn't the Executive branch. I think President is fine. What needs to change is our congress and senate.

Blue-Sky

Bingo. I love how much the President gets blamed for things when the majority of the populous has no idea how the government even works.People constantlyuse the figurehead as a scapegoat and act like they know what they're talking about.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]He's not doing exactly what I'd like him to be doing, but he's certainly doing better than any GOP platform I've heard proposed recently.airshocker

The GOP hasn't suggested policy that makes business crap itself(cap and trade, forms for sales over a certain amount, etc). Our unemployment is at 9%. The GOP has nothing to do with that.

I suppose it's subjective, depending on what your priorities are, but he's not doing so well in my book.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]He's not doing exactly what I'd like him to be doing, but he's certainly doing better than any GOP platform I've heard proposed recently.airshocker

The GOP hasn't suggested policy that makes business crap itself(cap and trade, forms for sales over a certain amount, etc). Our unemployment is at 9%. The GOP has nothing to do with that.

I suppose it's subjective, depending on what your priorities are, but he's not doing so well in my book.

Um... Cap and Trade was originally a Republican idea, much like alot of the other stuff they have come to malign over the years of Obama's presidency. GOP has a GREAT DEAL to do with our deficit and unemployment because of Bush 43's irresponsible economic policies and unbudgeted warmaking (not saying that we should have gone to Afghanistan, but that and the adventure he had in Iraq never got a second thought when it came to the budget).

Not only that, but Republican's Default brinksmanship has caught the ire of those on Wall Street because of the turmoil it would cause on the world market.

Cap and trade was not only a Republican supported idea originally, but it has since been dropped and it not currently being persued. The Obama administration is also acquiescing to repealing the $600 vendor purchase reporting requirement. As for unemployment, it tankes under a Republican administration and has been rising since. Besides that, the only GOP proposal I've seen to decrease unemployment is to lower taxes - surely we can agree that such an idea is ludicrous when the same people are pandering to lower the deficit.mattbbpl

The damage has already been done. That's the point.

We need a new President that is going to be far more friendly towards business in order to bring this economy back.

Is it not wise to eliminate loopholes and bring our corporate income tax down to a more reasonable level? Considering states tack their own corporate tax onto them, we should be lowering the corporate income tax.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]Cap and trade was not only a Republican supported idea originally, but it has since been dropped and it not currently being persued. The Obama administration is also acquiescing to repealing the $600 vendor purchase reporting requirement. As for unemployment, it tankes under a Republican administration and has been rising since. Besides that, the only GOP proposal I've seen to decrease unemployment is to lower taxes - surely we can agree that such an idea is ludicrous when the same people are pandering to lower the deficit.airshocker

The damage has already been done. That's the point.

We need a new President that is going to be far more friendly towards business in order to bring this economy back.

Is it not wise to eliminate loopholes and bring our corporate income tax down to a more reasonable level? Considering states tack their own corporate tax onto them, we should be lowering the corporate income tax.

Um... Cap and Trade was originally a Republican idea, much like alot of the other stuff they have come to malign over the years of Obama's presidency. GOP has a GREAT DEAL to do with our deficit and unemployment because of Bush 43's irresponsible economic policies and unbudgeted warmaking (not saying that we should have gone to Afghanistan, but that and the adventure he had in Iraq never got a second thought when it came to the budget).

Not only that, but Republican's Default brinksmanship has caught the ire of those on Wall Street because of the turmoil it would cause on the world market.

Ultimas_Blade

Already said it doesn't matter in my eyes. They're not the ones for it now. If that ever changes, I will oppose them on it.

And Obama is just as much to blame. The stimulus didn't do what he said it would and what people seem to forget is that UNEMPLOYMENT TICKED UP this month. Not down. It's clear that we need a shake up of the federal government. Starting with a new President.

Isn't that precisely what Obama proposed? Of course, Republicans are saying they want to close loopholes too but are still insisting on keeping gas subsidies and creating new loopholes that allow companies to bring home offshore profits while avoiding taxes.

mattbbpl

Why did it take three years? We shouldn't be taxing business for it's operations in other countries. Only for what they do here.

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

But it was the GOP platform that brought unemployment to 8% in the first place.

Right now their policy is to stop progressive legislation, stop change, and keep doing the same thing we've always been doing. My question to you is, if what we;ve been doing before created problem, how can it also be the solution?

airshocker

He's had almost three years to bring unemployment down. That hasn't happened. That makes it his mess. You can't use "It was Bush's fault!" for the entire first-term.

In my eyes progressive legislation is the problem in this country. Also, I voted to put a restraining order on Obama. That was my goal in the 2010 election.

You make no sense. You're voting with ideal of restraining Obama while simultaneously complaining about his effectiveness. That makes you the problem. Do you not see the vicious cycle?

The best thing we can do for the presidency is vote more of his party into congress. If you don't want want to vote more Dems in, then you need to be honest. It's not Obama thats your issue, it's the entire Democratic platform.

im not currently a registered voter. (havent really found proper reason to register). however if palin runs i will make sure to vote for literally anyone else. to even allow her the chance is just rediculous

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]I was convinced weeks ago that she wasn't going to run. But now she seems to be making slight moves in preparing herself for an official candidacy. I guess current speculation is that she'll try to time it with the upcoming documentary about her.airshocker

Even if she does, it won't matter. I guarantee it's going to be either Romney, Pawlenty or Huntsman who win the primary nomination. I'm hoping Huntsman does because I think he can sway a lot of moderate Dems and independents.

Hunstman is a long shot. He has talked alot of smack about the party, he praised Obama, he has alot of stances that the right doesn't like, the primary calendar doesn't favor him, he is Mormon, etc.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

Isn't that precisely what Obama proposed? Of course, Republicans are saying they want to close loopholes too but are still insisting on keeping gas subsidies and creating new loopholes that allow companies to bring home offshore profits while avoiding taxes.

airshocker

Why did it take three years? We shouldn't be taxing business for it's operations in other countries. Only for what they do here.

It takes forever for legislation to pass because Republicans don't want Obama to succeed even at the benefit of the nation. That's why they're against proposals under him that were for under Bush.

You make no sense. You're voting with ideal of restraining Obama while simultaneously complaining about his effectiveness. That makes you the problem. Do you not see the vicious cycle?

The best thing we can do for the presidency is vote more of his party into congress. If you don't want want to vote more Dems in, then you need to be honest. It's not Obama thats your issue, it's the entire Democratic platform.

Blue-Sky

I voted to put a restraining order on him to stop his progressive policies. Policies I believe hurt us far more than they help us.

The best thing we can do is actually to vote him out and vote more Republicans in. Or just vote in a new Republican president. I'm perfectly fine with actual bipartisanship. Not this bastardization of the act we currently see in our government.

Hunstman is a long shot. He has talked alot of smack about the party, he praised Obama, he has alot of stances that the right doesn't like, the primary calendar doesn't favor him, he is Mormon, etc.

GreySeal9

If it's between him and Romney, I choose Huntsman everyday. If Republicans can't see that Romney changes his stances to suit wherever he's at, we don't deserve to take the White House back.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

But it was the GOP platform that brought unemployment to 8% in the first place.

Right now their policy is to stop progressive legislation, stop change, and keep doing the same thing we've always been doing. My question to you is, if what we;ve been doing before created problem, how can it also be the solution?

Blue-Sky

He's had almost three years to bring unemployment down. That hasn't happened. That makes it his mess. You can't use "It was Bush's fault!" for the entire first-term.

In my eyes progressive legislation is the problem in this country. Also, I voted to put a restraining order on Obama. That was my goal in the 2010 election.

You make no sense. You're voting with ideal of restraining Obama while simultaneously complaining about his effectiveness. That makes you the problem. Do you not see the vicious cycle?

The best thing we can do for the presidency is vote more of his party into congress. If you don't want want to vote more Dems in, then you need to be honest. It's not Obama thats your issue, it's the entire Democratic platform.

Thank you. Conservatives go on complaining about Obama doing "too" much but in the next breath he isn't doing anything to help those poor "job-creators" who just raked in their biggest check ever.

It takes forever for legislation to pass because Republicans don't want Obama to succeed even at the benefit of the nation. That's why they're against proposals under him that were for under Bush.

Blue-Sky

That's horse-s***.

Being against legislation that will have huge consequences for our economy is the smartest thing to do. Doesn't matter if they supported it previously.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Hunstman is a long shot. He has talked alot of smack about the party, he praised Obama, he has alot of stances that the right doesn't like, the primary calendar doesn't favor him, he is Mormon, etc.

airshocker

If it's between him and Romney, I choose Huntsman everyday. If Republicans can't see that Romney changes his stances to suit wherever he's at, we don't deserve to take the White House back.

I can see why one would like Hustsman better. All I'm saying Romeny or Pawlenty has a far better chance to win IMO.

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

You make no sense. You're voting with ideal of restraining Obama while simultaneously complaining about his effectiveness. That makes you the problem. Do you not see the vicious cycle?

The best thing we can do for the presidency is vote more of his party into congress. If you don't want want to vote more Dems in, then you need to be honest. It's not Obama thats your issue, it's the entire Democratic platform.

I voted to put a restraining order on him to stop his progressive policies. Policies I believe hurt us far more than they help us.

The best thing we can do is actually to vote him out and vote more Republicans in. Or just vote in a new Republican president. I'm perfectly fine with actual bipartisanship. Not this bastardization of the act we currently see in our government.

Thank you. Conservatives go on complaining about Obama doing "too" much but in the next breath he isn't doing anything to help those poor "job-creators" who just raked in their biggest check ever.

Ultimas_Blade

Thanks to loopholes created by both parties. When Obama actually does something about it, instead of calling for commissions, then he'll get some major props for fixing the problem.

Seriously? The Democrats have been forced to compromise for his entire presidency due to both the filibuster in the Senate and now the Republican control of the House. What exactly is bipartisanship if compromise isn't it?mattbbpl

I expect bipartisanship not to hurt ANYBODY. I expect it to be for the good of the country as a whole. That doesn't mean raising taxes on one group of people everytime the government spends too much money.

I can see why one would like Hustsman better. All I'm saying Romeny or Pawlenty has a far better chance to win IMO.

GreySeal9

Perhaps, and I would choose Pawlenty over Romney as well.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]Seriously? The Democrats have been forced to compromise for his entire presidency due to both the filibuster in the Senate and now the Republican control of the House. What exactly is bipartisanship if compromise isn't it?airshocker

I expect bipartisanship not to hurt ANYBODY. I expect it to be for the good of the country as a whole. That doesn't mean raising taxes on one group of people everytime the government spends too much money.

No one's tax brackets were raised. In fact, taxes have actually fallen under Obama's presidency.mattbbpl

It's the intent I'm talking about here. Taxes haven't been raised because of the Republicans. And I'm going to vote to keep it that way.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]Seriously? The Democrats have been forced to compromise for his entire presidency due to both the filibuster in the Senate and now the Republican control of the House. What exactly is bipartisanship if compromise isn't it?airshocker

I expect bipartisanship not to hurt ANYBODY. I expect it to be for the good of the country as a whole. That doesn't mean raising taxes on one group of people everytime the government spends too much money.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I can see why one would like Hustsman better. All I'm saying Romeny or Pawlenty has a far better chance to win IMO.

airshocker

Perhaps, and I would choose Pawlenty over Romney as well.

Pawlenty actually has a good chance against Romney in my eyes. He's the one candidate who can appeal to both the establishment and the tea party.

It will be hard for someone ike Hunstman to be the anti-Romney. It will be quite easy for Pawlenty to do so.

I would not be at all surprised to see Pawlenty win the nomination. The biggest hurdle for him is Romney's money machine.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]No one's tax brackets were raised. In fact, taxes have actually fallen under Obama's presidency.airshocker

It's the intent I'm talking about here. Taxes haven't been raised because of the Republicans. And I'm going to vote to keep it that way.

And that's unrealistic. Even Paul Ryan's plan which is being so highly praised reduces benefits received by the elderly, the poor, and reduces taxes for the top income tax bracket.mattbbpl

Nothing changes for those who are already 55. It only affects those who aren't.

I don't particularly agree with any more tax cuts for the wealthy, but then again there is no better plan. It seems like there's only one side that actually cares about the budget, and it's not the Democrats.

Palin could theoretically win the Republican nomination, although it's unlikely.

I don't think it's even theoretically possible that Palin could win the general election against Obama.

GabuEx

Yeah, I don't think so either. Palin as nominee could give Obama a realistic shot at Texas and that would be a nightmare for the GOP.

And what about reducing medicaid and eliminating medicare? Doesn't that hurt the poor and elderly?mattbbpl

I don't see how making people in-charge of their health is a bad thing. I'm concerned with the voucher not keeping up with the rising costs of health insurance, but that's about it.

Pawlenty actually has a good chance against Romney in my eyes. He's the one candidate who can appeal to both the establishment and the tea party.

It wil be hard for someone ike Hunstman to be the anti-Romney. It will be quite easy for Pawlenty to do so.

I would not be at all surprised to see Pawlenty win the nomination. The biggest hurdle for him is Romney's money machine.

GreySeal9

We've still got eight months to go. Either Pawlenty or Huntsman will do just fine for me. I'd grudgingly vote for Romney if he won the nomination, but only because I can't imagine about four years of Obama. I really don't want to know how far to the left he's going to go when he doesn't have to run for re-election.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]And that's unrealistic. Even Paul Ryan's plan which is being so highly praised reduces benefits received by the elderly, the poor, and reduces taxes for the top income tax bracket.airshocker

Nothing changes for those who are already 55. It only affects those who aren't.

I don't particularly agree with any more tax cuts for the wealthy, but then again there is no better plan. It seems like there's only one side that actually cares about the budget, and it's not the Democrats.

Which further illustrates my point. It hurts one demographic while ignoring another.

Which further illustrates my point. It hurts one demographic while ignoring another.

As for the bolded line, you have got be yanking my chain or delusional. Republican's are still trying to pass massive tax cuts, create more loopholes, and reinforce existing subsidies. Paul Ryan's plan, which also includes large tax cuts,doesn't produce a blanced budget for greater than 10 years by CONSERVATIVE estimates.

mattbbpl

When has policy helped everyone?

WHERE is the democratic plan to fix the budget? Not Obama's half-assed, joke of a plan that actually INCREASES our deficit. Keep in mind, I wouldn't have a problem with more deficits if we actually saw some benefit. Where are they trying to create more loopholes?

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]And what about reducing medicaid and eliminating medicare? Doesn't that hurt the poor and elderly?airshocker

I don't see how making people in-charge of their health is a bad thing. I'm concerned with the voucher not keeping up with the rising costs of health insurance, but that's about it.

It greatly increases the cost of healthcare premiums to the recipients (60%). And yes, it's also expected that the cost of healthcare would greatly outpace the growth of the voucher.mattbbpl

Then perhaps we shouldn't have passed ObamaCare. :)

Even though premiums had been rising before it, it wouldn't of sky-rocketed like it had if we didn't pass it.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

Which further illustrates my point. It hurts one demographic while ignoring another.

As for the bolded line, you have got be yanking my chain or delusional. Republican's are still trying to pass massive tax cuts, create more loopholes, and reinforce existing subsidies. Paul Ryan's plan, which also includes large tax cuts,doesn't produce a blanced budget for greater than 10 years by CONSERVATIVE estimates.

airshocker

When has policy helped everyone?

WHERE is the democratic plan to fix the budget? Not Obama's half-assed, joke of a plan that actually INCREASES our deficit. Keep in mind, I wouldn't have a problem with more deficits if we actually saw some benefit. Where are they trying to create more loopholes?

Regarding the bolded line, you just stated that was what you regarded as bipartisanship.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]It greatly increases the cost of healthcare premiums to the recipients (60%). And yes, it's also expected that the cost of healthcare would greatly outpace the growth of the voucher.airshocker

Then perhaps we shouldn't have passed ObamaCare. :)

Even though premiums had been rising before it, it wouldn't of sky-rocketed like it had if we didn't pass it.

Regarding the bolded line, you just stated that was what you regarded as bipartisanship.

Paul Ryan had a joke of a budget. Obama had a joke of a budget. Both were voted down. Subsequent budgets have also been voted down. Now they need to devise a new one and confer, but that probably won't get much headway until the debt ceiling issue is finished.

mattbbpl

What does that have to do with the question I just asked you?

I guess the President should stop holding commissions if we're not going to implement what they suggest. Because that's what Ryan took heavily from.

Uh.... They were rising very quickly, and tens of millions of people weren't covered which everyone agrees is a problem since they can't be denied care. I guess this is where I mirror your question back at you: Where is the Republican proposal for health care reform? The most recent one they supported was an incarnation of the one that was passed.mattbbpl

They were rising, but not as fast as ObamaCare made them rise.

Ryan had some ideas, can you tell me which one of these made it into ObamaCare?

• Provides a refundable tax credit – $2,300 for individuals and $5,700 for families – to purchase coverage in any State, and keep it with them if they move or change jobs.
• Provides transparency in health care price and quality data, making this critical information readily available before someone needs health services.
• Creates state-based health care exchanges, so individuals and families have a one-stop marketplace to purchase affordable health insurance without being discriminated against based on pre-existing conditions.
• Equips states with tools like auto-enrollment programs and high-risk pools, so affordable health coverage can be accessed by all.
• Addresses health care's growing strain on small businesses, by allowing them to pool together nationally to offer coverage to their employees.
• Encourages the adoption of health information technology and assists states in establishing solutions to medical malpractice litigation.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

Regarding the bolded line, you just stated that was what you regarded as bipartisanship.

Paul Ryan had a joke of a budget. Obama had a joke of a budget. Both were voted down. Subsequent budgets have also been voted down. Now they need to devise a new one and confer, but that probably won't get much headway until the debt ceiling issue is finished.

What does that have to do with the question I just asked you?

I guess the President should stop holding commissions if we're not going to implement what they suggest. Because that's what Ryan took heavily from.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]And what about reducing medicaid and eliminating medicare? Doesn't that hurt the poor and elderly?mattbbpl

I don't see how making people in-charge of their health is a bad thing. I'm concerned with the voucher not keeping up with the rising costs of health insurance, but that's about it.

And that is precisely my problem with that part of the plan. The voucher will end up costing us more than medicare does while giving less to seniors than traditional medicare does. The voucher will grow so expensive that we will eventually need to eliminate it and that, I think, is the ultimate goal of this plan; it's entirely ideological.

The the relevance of my first statement lies in the fact that you derided Obama for supporting policies that didn't help everyone. You contradicted yourself with that following statement.

And commission proposals rarely ever see legislative light as-is. mattbbpl

I didn't contradict myself. And I don't believe I derided Obama for anything. I was talking about the legislature when I was talking about bipartisanship.

Then WHY HAVE ONE? If you're not going to do what they suggest, why posture? It's pathetic, and a waste of money.

I usually vote republican.

But if all we have to offer in 2012 in Palin, then I am certain we are in for another 4 years of Obama.

What the hell happened to the people that are actually respected, honorable and real? Oh wait, this is American politics. :|